Pondering The Origin Of Compassion

Where did the ideal of compassion originate? I presume many will feel this an opportune moment to tell me, "the idea of compassion comes from God and GOD ALONE!" Apart from pointing out that this would relegate compassion in itself to complete meaninglessness, why is it so arbitrary?

Arbitrary you ask? Arbitrary in the sense that it is not always followed. As I've made clear on numerous occasions, ideals seem ideal in the strictest sense only when always followed! Otherwise, one could claim to be compassionate toward abused babies and abandoned puppies but show little other than contempt and judgment for child molesters and rapists! This does not seem to make compassion ideal, rather it seems to make it little more than convenient.

So what could reasonably explain each individual's arbitrariness regarding whom to demonstrate compassion to and whom to not? I have an interesting idea as to how we might consciously or probably more commonly unconsciously "calculate" this. We simply accord compassion to those in circumstances we could see ourselves in or have already been in. In this way, we project a sort of "hope" that if the roles were reversed, these same people would bestow compassion on us. A tit for tat so to speak or perhaps a more evolutionary term, reciprocal altruism.

Why, one might ask, does it seem so few have compassion for child molesters and rapists? Because very few (we will desperately hope at least) could ever see themselves committing these kinds of egregious acts! Hence why few seem compelled to sympathize with them.

On the other hand, take those that have committed extra-marital affairs. As I have pointed out previously, if all those that judged others for having affairs did not have it in them to go on and do just the same, there would be far fewer affairs. Perhaps many who have compassion and forgiveness for those who are found out to have had affairs either consciously or unconsciously acknowledge the fact that they would or at least could go on to do just the same (or perhaps already have) and in this sense they are, once again, simply projecting "hope" that if the roles were reversed, these same people would bestow compassion and forgiveness on them!

I think this relegates compassion to being nothing but evolutionary group selection. In this sense, we engage in a sort of reciprocal altruism because it benefits US as individuals! This is decidedly selfish! Not that there is anything particularly wrong with this but then what becomes of the ideal of compassion as having originated from a God that commands or at least desires us to be selfless?


Perhaps the pinnacle of compassion would be forgiving child molesters and rapists? Hmm.....not sure I could do this especially if MY child and wife were their victims!

Where Does Oppression End And Freedom Begin?

What does it mean to be “free”? To be “free” from oppression perhaps? Freedom is often touted as being the most absolute of ideals, at least according to “free” societies. If one is oppressed but unaware of this, is he still oppressed and ultimately “imprisoned”?

In other words, is freedom an intrinsic ideal or is lack of freedom wrong or evil only when it is recognized by the oppressed? If oppression is only so if recognized as such, perhaps we should not be so quick to judge others as being oppressed if they do not know it.

On the other hand, I suspect many will claim freedom is an intrinsic ideal and therefore lack of freedom need not be recognized by the oppressed to be wrong or evil. But in this case, how would anybody know he himself is not one of the oppressed and therefore a “prisoner” himself?

For example, many seem so fated to follow a certain path in life only because they follow the path of least resistance or the path that simply "follows the herd". Or how about many who simply acquiesce to the “demands” of society to determine what path should be followed? Might this explain why job satisfaction seems so lacking even during prosperous times? The young and impressionable seem so apt to follow societal norms when a careful analysis of themselves just might reveal this to be unwise and lead to depression because it prevents them from being who they genuinely are.

Might the world be better off if people were not controlled by this norm and were thus able to just "be themselves”? What about those of us with seemingly beyond instinctive tendencies to be prejudicial and judgmental? Might childhood indoctrination be responsible for this and thus itself be a form of oppression? 

Many will be angry at this because much of this indoctrination involves long-held and cherished beliefs. But I am not against beliefs themselves, only the usage of them to indoctrinate the very impressionable among us, especially children, as this can likely cause “oppression” later in life.

If this is so, maybe we should become free ourselves before worrying about freeing others simply to follow our “superior” version of oppression, which we are no doubt unaware of.

The Delusion Of Impartiality

I don't get it.....all this concern and fear that potential judges might base their rulings on politics? Might? Of course they will rule based on politics! That is the whole point! Why would one suppose die-hard conservatives and bleeding-heart liberals find it so important that one of their own is chosen to judge? Presumably so these judges will make decisions that cater to their preferred political positions. Trouble is, it is guaranteed to piss off “the others”!

In my opinion, potential judges should ideally be apolitical. Could this ever happen? Is it even possible for anybody to rule impartially without politics getting in the way? Probably not. As the eminent Canadian physician-philosopher Sir William Osler told the Yale University graduating class in 1913, “every man has a philosophy of life in thought, word, or in deed, worked out in himself unconsciously.

The following analogy quite clearly exposes the absurdity of believing court rulings can ever be free of political preferences. Take a conservative judge and a liberal one. To digress slightly, the fact that these labels are acknowledged to begin with demonstrates the utter futility of trying to approach judgments apart from political preferences. In any case, suppose the conservative believes criminals should be judged to the full extent of the law. On the other hand, suppose the liberal believes criminals should be extended grace. Further suppose our “Book of Law” is the Holy Bible. Can each justify a ruling based on his preferred political position?

Certainly, because the Bible endorses both judgment and grace. Our Constitution is no different in this respect. This “gray” area is the cause of all argument and conflict. By advocating different perspectives, we can reach contradictory but equally valid conclusions. Which is “right”? Both or neither if you like. It is difficult if not impossible to avoid making decisions based on political inclinations! Especially from judges that outright claim specific affiliations.

In the same way, the U.S. Constitution supposedly calls for doing "whatever need be" to protect its citizens but then it also prohibits the torturing of enemy combatants. Do these guidelines seem contradictory at least in some cases*? Yes! Therefore, no matter whether we do this or that, it will justifiably be viewed as subverting the Constitution from one perspective or another! When difficult decisions like this are faced, YOU ARE DAMNED IF YOU DO AND DAMNED IF YOU DON'T!

*Because of the relativity of just about everything, one can easily craft definitions of things in such ways as to neutralize or at least mitigate these contradictions. For instance, those who wish to get information from enemy combatants in any way conceivable will thus define torture as something apart from what THEY do. Alternatively, those who want to coddle dangerous enemy combatants will thus argue that withholding the use of torture will not place any greater a danger on its citizens than will torturing them.

Therefore, there is no RIGHT answer. Or if you prefer, perhaps we could say there is no WRONG answer!

What Makes God's Ideals Ideal?

I believe one of the subtle messages Jesus taught about ideals is that it is not enough, nay it is nearly meaningless I tell you, to follow ideals with practicality in mind. Meaning, if one follows ideals only within the context of what is deemed practical, he will likely never follow them when they are at all meaningful. In other words, I think Jesus was teaching us that ideals are only truly ideal when they are not practical.

For instance, consider Jesus' teachings on love as an ideal. If treated as such, love is most ideal or perhaps only ideal when it involves loving those that are most difficult to love. If you only love those that reciprocate, what credit is that to you? Even the devil of hell and mobsters are quite capable of this! Loving only those that love you certainly is practical but is far from ideal. Applying this principal to other things like forgiveness and mercy, it appears many might believe in ideals. However, their Achilles' heel prohibits them from actually exercising these ideals when it is impractical to do so. But when an ideal is exercised only when it is practical, it will not be followed when it is most needed. This is not ideal.

Isn't it touching that people have sympathy for an abused baby or an abandoned puppy? Of course people have sympathy for them! But this is a case of practical sympathy. It does not require anything close to that of a saint to be sympathetic to the plight of a suffering child or defenseless puppy. But what about having genuine sympathy for a convicted rapist, drug abuser or child molester facing dire consequences entirely brought on by his irresponsible and reckless behavior? At this point, most would adopt the ideal that he is reaping what he has sown. This certainly feels much more emotionally comforting for most because it is practical. Which means any and all sympathy for a “low-life” like this is conveniently abandoned in favor of the emotional satisfaction of feeling like he is getting what he deserves. But if the ideal of sympathy is taken seriously, what could possibly be a better demonstration of it than to have sympathy especially for a dreg like this?

Conversely, if we subscribe to the ideal that one should reap what he sows, there is no reason to have sympathy for a penniless widow if she is penniless because she did not prepare responsibly for this possibility. Are there many people that would not have sympathy for this woman? I would like to think not! My point is that no matter how much we try to act out and uphold ideals, if we do not do so absolutely, our ideals become merely relative. Which means they are not really ideal. They are simply arbitrary based on any given individual's preference.

With this realization then, I must admit I fail to see God as the author of many of our supposed "ideals" and moral convictions. Rather, I see ego as its principle author.